subj= no child left behind beginning to work?
A california article by Jean Merl a Times Staff Writer quotes Stanford Professor Michael Kirst as stating:
Principals in urban neighborhood schools " ..were really managing instructional improvement," he said. "It indicates the state accountability system is filtering down to the classroom in the more successful schools."
Successful schools: meaning those who are doing better against established state standards without increasing spending for the instructional day or on additional teachers.
These schools with lower budgets are simply linking their lessons more closely with what the students need to know for these standardized tests. Now I could see someone having issue with this, but this is how we as teenagers and adults learn and prepare for assessment.
When you took your SATs , ACTs or graduate school tests you only studied and restudied relevant information for the applicable test. If we are looking to raise the minimum level of education in our country.
The NCLB act provisions that states adopt standards to which a majority of students will be held. If this is adopted and held then these states would be provided extra funding in accordance.
For some reason people have issue with this. To them my question becomes. NY State, Mass. & California all already had such standards in place and began to receive extra federal funding for education. Would it be so bad for all states to establish such a system? Education is not and should not be a federally run system. There is too much beurocracy already and variation from district to district. States have their individual needs and priorities. The government has simply provided a method which holds each state accountable for a predetermined measure of education before receiving additional federal funding.
I don't see anything wrong with that.
A california article by Jean Merl a Times Staff Writer quotes Stanford Professor Michael Kirst as stating:
Principals in urban neighborhood schools " ..were really managing instructional improvement," he said. "It indicates the state accountability system is filtering down to the classroom in the more successful schools."
Successful schools: meaning those who are doing better against established state standards without increasing spending for the instructional day or on additional teachers.
These schools with lower budgets are simply linking their lessons more closely with what the students need to know for these standardized tests. Now I could see someone having issue with this, but this is how we as teenagers and adults learn and prepare for assessment.
When you took your SATs , ACTs or graduate school tests you only studied and restudied relevant information for the applicable test. If we are looking to raise the minimum level of education in our country.
The NCLB act provisions that states adopt standards to which a majority of students will be held. If this is adopted and held then these states would be provided extra funding in accordance.
For some reason people have issue with this. To them my question becomes. NY State, Mass. & California all already had such standards in place and began to receive extra federal funding for education. Would it be so bad for all states to establish such a system? Education is not and should not be a federally run system. There is too much beurocracy already and variation from district to district. States have their individual needs and priorities. The government has simply provided a method which holds each state accountable for a predetermined measure of education before receiving additional federal funding.
I don't see anything wrong with that.
posted by enrique at
9:52 AM
